Department of Food Science , Aarhus University , Blichers Allé 20 , 8830 Tjele , Denmark.
College of Food Science and Engineering , South China University of Technology , 381 Wushan Road , Tianhe District, Guangzhou , Guangdong 510640 , People's Republic of China.
J Agric Food Chem. 2019 Dec 26;67(51):14007-14018. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b05891. Epub 2019 Dec 12.
Debate on the hazards of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in food has continued for many years as a result of their uncertain bioavailability and ability to bind to their receptors (RAGEs) . There are increasing evidence that free and bound AGEs have many differences in gastrointestinal digestion, intestinal absorption, binding with RAGEs, circulation, and renal clearance. Therefore, this paper compares these aspects between free and bound AGEs by summarizing the available knowledge. On the basis of the current knowledge, we conclude that it is time to differentiate free AGEs from bound AGEs in food in future studies, because they vary in many aspects that are closely related to their influence on human health. Several perspectives were proposed at the end of this review for further exploring the difference between free and bound AGEs in food.
由于其生物利用度不确定以及与受体(RAGE)结合的能力,关于食品中晚期糖基化终产物(AGEs)危害的争论已经持续了多年。越来越多的证据表明,游离和结合的 AGEs 在胃肠道消化、肠道吸收、与 RAGE 结合、循环和肾脏清除方面有许多差异。因此,本文通过总结现有知识,比较了游离和结合的 AGEs 之间在这些方面的差异。基于目前的知识,我们得出结论,在未来的研究中,有必要区分食物中的游离 AGEs 和结合 AGEs,因为它们在许多与人类健康密切相关的方面存在差异。本文最后提出了几个观点,以供进一步探讨食物中游离和结合的 AGEs 之间的差异。